Ben and Daniel

[Joeytrom]

Perhaps it would have been better to have had Joshua Collins still be alive in 1840 and be the patriarch of the family.  Joshua and Ben were about the same age.

[Gothick]

People age at different rates.  I know people around my age (mid 40s) who look and act 20 years older than me, in some cases due to debilitating ailments.  I have a dear friend who is a year younger than me.  She's acted like an old lady since I first knew her back in the late 1980s, and now speaks of herself as a "crone in training."

The real problem is with the info given in 1968 about Ben dying in 1830.  But of course, in 1967 the events with Barnabas and Josette were originally described as happening around 1832. So Dark Shadows has kind of a set pattern of just "correcting" its own history.

With the 1840 storyline, the biggest problem of all is that NONE of the material revealed about the period in the immediately preceding 1970 story turns out to be relevant to what's going on when Julia arrives. Some months down the line, when Stokes shows up, she has to try to explain what's been going on to him.  The results are semi-comical.  I think Grayson and Thayer must have just looked at one another doing the read through and agreed to go for a stiff drink at the Brittany du Soir once they were done with THAT day's taping!

G.

[Julia99]

My work on my family geneology has also revealed a remarkably group of long lived relatives (most men into their 70s back to the 1600s) but still I recognize this to be atypical. . .when you were past your prime childbearing years--30, you was old. . .

[Raholt]

It is true that people living into their 70's was a bit atypical but into their 60's was not that unusual.  Women did tend to die younger than men and that was because of the number of children most had.  It is not that unusual to find a man married to his first wife until she is in her 40's or around 50 and then next you see him married to a 20 or 30 year old woman.  The wife has died in the time between.  Unlike today, where woman typically outlive the men, it was the other way around back then.

To the person who mentioned Joshua still being alive at in 1840, were he would have been an old man, based on his gravestone in the Mausoleum.  He would have been slightly older than Ben.

Now Ben tells Barnabas that Joshusa has been dead these many years.  It makes it sound like he died right after Barnabas was placed in the coffin, but he is implying he has been dead for sometime.  Then when Ben is questioned about Daniel, who Barnabas refers to as 'the boy," Ben says he is an old man now.  That statement has always bothered me because in regard to Ben, Daniel is still a spring chicken.  More accurately, the writers should have portrayed Daniel as being ill and that affecting his mind and stayed away from the references to age.  Given that Millicent wasn't all there, they could have played on it being a trait that ran in that part of the Collins family.  I've always thought it would have been interesting to see Millicent in that time, if only briefly.  She could have caused Barnabas a few scares with her way of saying whatever came to her mind.  In the end all that is revealed of Millicent is that she never had a happy day in her life. Now Millicent being about 10 years older than Daniel could have qualified as an old lady and a crazy old lady at that and that might have made for an interesting character.

Another point that was made by another poster about this storyline is that what was shown in 1970 ulitmately plays very little part in what happens in 1840, is so true, especially with regard to the children storyline.  That storyline in 1970 was at the forefront, but nothing is made of it after they go into the past.  I know David Hensey apparently left the series during this part of the story, but I've never understood why nothing was ever made of that part of the story while he was still there.

Finally, another point that has bothered me about this storyline is that  in 1897, Edith Collins knew the family secret...Barnabas.  Her husband told it to her and he had been told it by his father, Daniel.  Now why in 1840 did nobody, including Daniel, know about the family secret.  By the 1897 storyline, Joshua, to deminish the chances of Barnabas being released from his coffin had decided to tell Daniel about what became of Barnabas and this info was to be passed down to one person in each generation.  I can buy that after 1897, that info got lost so as to explain why those in 1967 didn't know about him, but if someone, Edith, knew in 1897, then someone had to know in 1840 and that fact, a fact played up prominently in 1897, is totally ignored in 1840.

Raholt   

[Patti Feinberg]

Raholt...the last go around (on a different board IIRC), we all 'presumed' that Edith did not YET know, because Danel still 'possessed' the knowledge...did he leave it in a will/memento??

But, last time around..that bothered me too!

Patti

[Philippe Cordier]

It occurred to me today to look at the date plaques on the portraits in the hallways of the state historical society where I work.  There are many portraits on different floors throughout the building, but I chose three in the hallway near the archives where I work.  One gentleman died in 1870 at the age of 81, one died in 1873 at age 73, and the third (a woman) died in 1899 at the age of 91.

The statistics that J99 shared here yesterday are eye opening, but it seems they are subject to interpretation.  Many people did live into old age ... but not as many and not as old as is common now.

I'm glad others felt free to mention genealogy, too.  After all, ancestry and family history are a major theme of DS.  After posting my earlier message, I came across an account of my great-grandfather's death in another newspaper.  This account expressed shock and dismay at his sudden death while in the prime of life (or words to that effect) just six days after falling ill in 1897.  But a greater discrepancy --  perhaps one worthy of our DS writers --  was that this newspaper named a different town in France as his birthplace.  This small town was easy to locate, and I am now excited to learn that my great-grandfather was from the lovely Moselle wine region in Lorraine (not Alsace, as I had wrongly thought for years).  My father suggests that the place name mentioned in the other newspaper could be something like a township or parish, but so far this remains unexplained.  It was a thrill for me to finally discover the right town because this is my direct bloodline -- which I will now be able to trace alongside my Scandinavian ancestry!

[Raholt]

Edith not knowing about the family secret in 1840, I understand and I agree that she did not yet have that knowledge.  However, Daniel surely had that knowledge and even in his weakened state should have been alarmed at the sight of Barnabas.  He was not.

One of the risks writers taken in doing a flashback that goes back in time farther than the one before and in this case falls between 2 flashbacks is that they will foul up on details, which they surely did in more than one way with this one.  The storyline is interesting but much is lacking in the way the detalis are handled or just ignored.  I know that in the original run, what is on now was being done well after 1897 and thus most people had forgotten  what they saw there and that only in reruns does it show to be a glaring error in continuitiy.

DS had one major fault and that was lack of keeping track with itself.  Dates seemed to be a primary source of this problem.  Often they  changed for no reason.  Collinwood was originally built in 1830 and that held true until the 1795 flashback.  One of my favorite errors regarding dates involves the date of Peter Bradford's tombstone as shown in 1968.  It said April 1795 as his date of death, yet Vicki arrived in the past in Oct of 1795 and that is made very clear.  How he could have died before she arrived and yet they knew each other and fell in love is something that nobody even thought about at that time.  I know time was suspended at Collinwood when Vicki went to 1795, but apparently it never went at the same rate as the rest of the world anyway.  This may explain how Daniel became so old so fast.


Raholt

[Philippe Cordier]

BTW, good catches, Raholt.   

[Josette]

As to the lack of connection between the 1970 "replay" of the 1840 story and the actual events we see when they go back, it's not just the lack of attention to the children.  We were led to believe that there was the ship Java Queen, Gerard was presumably the captain, and at least one time Daphne visited him there.  In 1840 all of that is simply forgotten.

[Raholt]

That is true that no mention of a ship is made except that Gerard had served with Quentin on board a ship, but the name of the ship is not mentioned that I recall.

However in the case of the Children, that plotline is made to be very important in 1970.  You are led to believe that not only was David and Haley in danger in 1970 but that it was somehow a rehashing of what happened to Tad and Carrie in 1840.  However in the end, the children are really not prime players in this segment.  Carrie is more so than Tad, but neither are put in the kind of danger that Daphne seems to fear for David and Haley in 1970, yet she clearly asks Gerard if it has to happen like it did before?  In the end, you wonder why the children were involved in the whole matter at all in 1970.  Unlike with 1897 where the events of 1968 and 1969 play a role in the plot line of the past, with the concern being for David in the future, no such thing happens with this plot.

I think the one thing that doesn't happen with 1840 that did happen with the plot leading up to 1897 is there is no reason given for why the ghosts suddenly appeared at Collinwood in 1970.  In the Quentin storyline, it is Chris and his curse that bring Quentin restless spriit back.  It is also his need for forgiveness from Jamison who he sees in David that is a driving force for his ghost.  Also his hatred for his family and their descendents makes him want in death what he could not have in life, which was Collinwood. 

In 1840 we have nothing to explain why the ghost show up when they do.  There is no event to explain why they came back when they did and why they had not come back before.  Had a grave been disturb or a room found, something to show how and why the restless spirits of Gerard, Daphne and the children came back it would have worked to better tie 1840 to 1970.

What was really going on behind the scenes was a franic race to do bigger and grander things each day.  Dan Curtis was pushing for something to happen each day and the pace of the show was on manic.  It is because of this that so many continuity errors occured.  The importance was on effects and having a major event everyday, rather than what had made the show so successful all along and that was telling a good story.  Up until the end of the 1897 flashback, the show seemingly could do no wrong.  Then the Leviathan storyline came around and that was followed by PT 1970, which might have been better had it no coincided with the production of House of Dark Shadows.   So much of the main cast being away for so long caused that storyline to drag and never live up to the potential it could have.  Then we had the 1995 flashforward which was quite good and very interesting.  Returning to 1970, we had 6 weeks of setup for the trip to 1840 and that was all those 6 weeks were about.  Then the story did not flesh out the setup, which really made that whole segment virtually worthless.

As someone else pointed out earlier, this segment had great potential but then it went off course and started rehashing previous plotlines.  We had the introduction of new characters and a new family line, the Drew family, but very little was made of the new sources for new stories.  Instead we see another version of Trask, which after Rev. Trask and Gregory Trask, the rest just paled in comparsion.  It was like because Jerry Lacy's, Tony Peterson didn't work, that he couldn't play anything except someone name Trask.  The most interesting part of this storyline is in the early part of this segment for the most part.  Toward the end we really start to go a bit crazy with the direction of the story and characters really begin to lose their definition.  During this time, without giving away the plot we have one of the biggest goofs continuity wise with a character being killed off who was essential to a later time period.  Finally with this segment we have the ulitmate end to the whole Barnabas and Angelique storyline, which to this day I have mixed feelings about.

Like I said originally, I do enjoy watching the 1840 storyline, not as much as 1795, but it is enjoyable to watch, but still I see that there was a great deal wrong with it that should not have happened and could have been avoided.

Raholt

[The Ghost of Sarah Collins]

Just how old is Ben suppose to be as opposed to Daniel.  Now in 1795, Ben was a man, in his  mid 40's (according to what Professor Stokes says about him in 1968 after Vicki returns to the present) and Daniel is a boy of about 11 or 12.  Now, since 45 years have passed since 1795, that would make Daniel only 57 at the most, yet he is presented as being an old man.  57 is not really an old man.  This would make Ben in his mid 80's, which also goes against what Profressor Stokes says about Ben's fate when he first meets Vicki in 1968.  He says Ben worked his land and died in his 75 year.  I saw this episode recently on DVD and if Ben was in his mid 40's in 1795, he would not have lived to 1840.

In the 1840 story, you are given the impression that Daniel is a much older man than he would have been and that he is going senile.  57 is pretty young, even in those days to be going senile.  Also Ben seems better able to get around than Daniel, when it probably should be the other way around.

I like the 1840 storyline but there parts of it that really were not written with any logical thought put into it, with regard to time and events both past and future.

   I like to think that Ben's actual age could well have been a mistake, Ben might have been up to 5 or 10 years younger... his good health may be because he worked out in the fresh air, ate a proper diet with plenty of exercise, I recall Ben being a very sound big man.

 Also... Daniel's lack of mental decline could be attributed to Daniel's   murdering his wife "Harriet" I understand guilt can be so heavy a price to pay as to cause the guilty person to suffer a physical as well as mental breakdown, causing Daniel to appear much older.

  I am also enjoying this story line.

  Sarah's

[Gerard]

That is true that no mention of a ship is made except that Gerard had served with Quentin on board a ship, but the name of the ship is not mentioned that I recall.

However in the case of the Children, that plotline is made to be very important in 1970.  You are led to believe that not only was David and Haley in danger in 1970 but that it was somehow a rehashing of what happened to Tad and Carrie in 1840.  However in the end, the children are really not prime players in this segment.  Carrie is more so than Tad, but neither are put in the kind of danger that Daphne seems to fear for David and Haley in 1970, yet she clearly asks Gerard if it has to happen like it did before?  In the end, you wonder why the children were involved in the whole matter at all in 1970.  Unlike with 1897 where the events of 1968 and 1969 play a role in the plot line of the past, with the concern being for David in the future, no such thing happens with this plot.

I'm wondering if it's possible that they simply just deviated from the original plot for 1840 they had earlier sketched out.  The 1897 story changed almost instantly from what they originally intended.  It was suppose to last only three months and there were apparently many differences from the 1897 "bible" and what eventually transpired on the small screen such as, I believe, Jenny being Edward's wife, not Quentin's.  But almost immediately, they began to shuffle characters around when something else popped up (like Diana Millay becoming available, so they rehashed the Laura story).  And, of course, as viewership skyrocketted, they just continued to add more and more until the 1897 tale went from three months to almost nine.

So maybe that happened with the 1840 plot.  It was laid out on paper, but the red pen quickly altered it without any thought to consistency and things already made clear in 1970 (such as Tad and Carrie dying at almost the exact time Quentin I did back in 1840; what was the importance of the Java Queen in all this; etc.).

Gerard

[Joeytrom]

It is even stated on the series itself that things in 1970 do not match up in 1840:

[spoiler]When Stokes arrives in 1840 via the stairway, Julia tells him that what they witnessed in 1970 differs from what she saw: Daphne not being there until later on, Gerard not being the ghost that haunts the family, etc.  So, there is some continuity explanation going on...she even brings up Cassandra being in the past to explain away Angelique.[/spoiler]

I still think Judah Zacahary was decieving everyone in 1970 to throw them off the trail.

[Philippe Cordier]

It is even stated on the series itself that things in 1970 do not match up in 1840:

[spoiler]When Stokes arrives in 1840 via the stairway, Julia tells him that what they witnessed in 1970 differs from what she saw: Daphne not being there until later on, Gerard not being the ghost that haunts the family, etc.  So, there is some continuity explanation going on...she even brings up Cassandra being in the past to explain away Angelique.[/spoiler]

I still think Judah Zacahary was decieving everyone in 1970 to throw them off the trail.

You're right, Joeytrom.

1840 is also the most complex storyline DS ever attempted, with time periods (1995, 1970, 1840, and late 1600s), events, and characters layered and interlayered amongst one another.  No question that there are some loose threads and some inconsistencies, as is the case with every DS storyline.  But no other DS storyline -- or any other TV show that I know of -- ever did anything so complex.

If I had time to really delve into every objection Raholt lists, I feel I could come up with a response to many of them ... unfortunately I don't have the time to put into such an effort right now.

I like Raholt's explication of the reasons behind the 1897 events, but to my mind these reasons were not made crystal clear in the show itself.  How Quentin's ghost trying to kill David was a bid for David's/Jamison's forgiveness and love is unclear to me.

Someone on this forum argued very cogently during the last run of 1897 that the original scope of that storyline was most likely a simple werewolf story which would have ended with Quentin being walled up in his room.  I think an a close reading of 1897 bears that out.  In a way, I think I might have liked that shorter version of 1897 better -- at least it would have been more cohesive plotwise and thematically.  Nevertheless it would be sad not to have ever had the Petofi character, etc., but that might have been done in yet another storyline, as would the other extensions to the original 1897 plot.  And the extensions of the 1897 storyline made up what it lost in cohesiveness and character consistency with some truly memorable sequences.

I agree with JoeyTrom that Judah Zachary is behind the 1970 and 1840 events, including why the ghosts of Gerard and Daphne appeared at Collinwood in 1970.  The writers probably didn't make every thing clear, but I feel sure that there was a concept behind their writing other than, "Hey, let's introduce some new ghosts for no reason because we can't think of anything else to do."  I feel that an in-depth analysis would uncover much that was left somewhat murky.

I definitely do not agree that various aspects named by Raholt and others were simply retreads of past storylines.  For example, it is logical that a Trask character would appear, bridging the gap between 1795 and 1897.  It's a delicious irony that this Trask should be an undertaker rather than a clergyman; it's also Jerry Lacy's most realistic villain, portrayed much more like a real person than his other Trask characters, which were really caricatures.

Moreover, the hint of redemption that is brought out near the end of the 1840 storyline marks the fulfillment of DS's ongoing philosophical look at the dark plight Barnabas faces over the length of the series; so in my view not only is 1840 far more cohesive and internally consistent than 1897, it is the culmination thematically of the entire series.  (And 1841 PT which follows further develops the redemption theme, making a nice coda for the entire series.)

[Raholt]

What Juilia says to Stokes, without giving away the details, is primarily relationship related.  The relatioinships as they concieved them to be in 1970 are not what they really were in 1840.  It is not so much the events she is talking about as the relationships of the people involved, Gerard, Daphne and the family of the period.

On another note, I agree is by far the most complex storyline the writers had to try to manage in the run of the series.  While I still think some of it was rehashed material from previous segments designed to try to help the shows ratings by using proven material that was known to work with the audience, just like as Laura Parker has said many time, the characters of Barnabas and Angelique were always brought to the forefront whenever the rating took a dive.  They were known to be audience favorites and they were.

It is true that in the writing of any segment of a continuing story, like DS, that certain elements change as the story evolves because of cast changes, a plot not working etc., but in this case it was really like they decided to abandon most of what was presented in 1970 to go off in a whole different direction once they got settled into 1840.  I have always wondered if Judiah Zachory was always suppose to be the force behind the evil spirit of Gerard in 1970 or if this was concieved as an explanation for it after the story reached 1840.   Even initially Gerard is portraited as being a scondrel and an opportunist when we first see him in 1840.  He is trying to get his hands on the Collins money through Samantha and this is made clear from the start.  Was this scondel originally  suppose to evolve into a cold heartless man who failed to reach his goals in life (Collinwood) and then came back to get them 130 years later, without the possessoin storyline.  I can see that as an option open to the writers early on but soon diverted to the Head of Judiah Zachory storyline as an explanation.  Still there is no reason given for why what happened in 1970 happened when it did and not at some other point in time.  I think that info would have helped this storyline by giving a focal point for Julia and Barnabas to look for and try to prevent, much as Barnabas looked for when and how Quentin would die in 1897, which apparently was not how it was originally intended shown.  I think that point was a rewrite in the 1897 storyline.

With all its mistakes and rewrites, 1840 is still a good storyline to watch and I enjoy it.  However, after 1795 the writers never again seem to find the magic of telling the story like that again.  1897 does well, esepecially early on, but as has been said before, it did drag out a bit too long and I think ulitmately that hurt that flashback as a whole.  1840 is not as long as 1795 and that actually hurts this one because it is ended sort of in a rushed fashion because of contracts and obligations that kept it from continuing.  I think if it could have played out in a more natural way, instead of a forced fashion, it might have been even bettter than it is.

Raholt